Yes the Red looks good for Video - using the same lenses as for 35mm - but then there is the processing in post to bring it closer in representation to film.

Quite simply video is not film and never will be.

There is an analogue biteback at the moment. There are so many young filmmakers out there disolusioned by the clinical world of digital that they are just looking for some organic way to be creative without relying on a computer to correct everything.

OK super 8 is not perfect - but this is part of the reason I like it. One day it will all end, but until then my DV camera coninutes to gather dust.

Andersens Tears wrote:Yes the Red looks good for Video - using the same lenses as for 35mm - but then there is the processing in post to bring it closer in representation to film.

But, to be fair, there is a tremendous amount of CC and post processing done on 35mm theatrical films to bring them closer to the intent of the film makers. In my opinion, the degree of post finessing required to make something look aesthetically like you want is kind of meaningless in the overall discussion since all formats require it to some degree and it soooooo easy to do, whether you originate on film or digital. Sure, sometimes you get lucky with Kodachrome and it looks exactly right but the same can be said of digital, too. But I know of no 35mm theatrical films that are used "as is", right out of the camera and then printed directly to projection stock and then released.

Andersens Tears wrote:Quite simply video is not film and never will be.

Isn't it, already? The average movie goer often still thinks that film and video are the same thing. They talk about a film they saw that was really shot on digital. The news talks about filming a segment when it was really shot on video. People call my shop allllllllll the time saying they have some old tapes shot back in the 40's they want transferred.

I understand what you are saying, though, from an aesthetic standpoint. But the statement "digital looks nothing like film" is very subjective while the statement "negative looks nothing like Kodachrome" isn't. So pointing out a minor difference between 24p HD and film isn't as significant to me as the glaring difference between negative and reversal. But we accept reversal, warts and all, in a way that we don't seem to accept 24p digital, even though it -with no post processing- emulates negative more closely than reversal ever would with all the post processing in the world. As a result, I think it is simply easier to look at digital as a different emulsion.

Ultimately I think we, as film lovers, have a bias that affects our preferences that would be sorely tested if we had to do the blind taste test ourselves. ;)

Andersens Tears wrote:There is an analogue biteback at the moment. There are so many young filmmakers out there disolusioned by the clinical world of digital that they are just looking for some organic way to be creative without relying on a computer to correct everything.

I'm not sure how you define "so many young film makers" as a meaningful sampling of the marketplace. Not be argumentative but, realistically, if they are young film makers with little actual film experience, my guess is they would have a very hard, if not impossible, time doing a blind taste test if they had to pick out shots on the screen that originated on film or digital. And, again, the degree of post work required to make something look like you want is kind of moot since very little film originated material looks like you want, right out of the magazine. I seriously doubt they would switch over to reversal just to avoid the hassle of dealing with the orange masking inherent in negative stock and, let's face it, the degree of CC required to make negative look anything close to "normal" is far greater than what is required to make even the cheapest 24p camera look acceptable, right out of the camera.

Andersens Tears wrote:OK super 8 is not perfect - but this is part of the reason I like it. One day it will all end, but until then my DV camera coninutes to gather dust.

Well, I think that is a valid argument about the viability of film. The unpredictable nature of film emulsion means that you can have some really interesting final results, which is something that I like, myself. So I'm with you 100% on that. But, from a commercial film standpoint, unpredictability is the least desired trait of any serious medium. So, in that sense, I can see how the industry is moving more and more towards digital for production.

Andersens Tears wrote:Yes the Red looks good for Video - using the same lenses as for 35mm - but then there is the processing in post to bring it closer in representation to film.

But, to be fair, there is a tremendous amount of CC and post processing done on 35mm theatrical films to bring them closer to the intent of the film makers. In my opinion, the degree of post finessing required to make something look aesthetically like you want is kind of meaningless in the overall discussion since all formats require it to some degree and it soooooo easy to do, whether you originate on film or digital. Sure, sometimes you get lucky with Kodachrome and it looks exactly right but the same can be said of digital, too. But I know of no 35mm theatrical films that are used "as is", right out of the camera and then printed directly to projection stock and then released.

Yes that is a fair point Roger - however Digital processed to mimic filmic qualities it STILL is an arteficial representation of 'FILM' - I hate using cliches, but here is one - it's like the diet coke to the regular coke - it does the same job but it just tastes arteficial.

MovieStuff wrote:

Andersens Tears wrote:Quite simply video is not film and never will be.

Isn't it, already? The average movie goer often still thinks that film and video are the same thing. They talk about a film they saw that was really shot on digital. The news talks about filming a segment when it was really shot on video. People call my shop allllllllll the time saying they have some old tapes shot back in the 40's they want transferred.

No. It's something to do with shining a light through a moving strip with an ascetate base covered with chemicals that video lacks - it is a physical thing - and this is where the basis for my argument 'film is not video and never will be' came from.

Roger, in one of my previous posts I talk about the terminology 'filming' when using video - I abhor it - I can't even stand it when you watch something that says at the beginning 'A Film by' when this is just not true.

MovieStuff wrote:I understand what you are saying, though, from an aesthetic standpoint. But the statement "digital looks nothing like film" is very subjective while the statement "negative looks nothing like Kodachrome" isn't.

That's not exactly what I said Roger, hopefully my explanation above has made this more clear.

MovieStuff wrote:So pointing out a minor difference between 24p HD and film isn't as significant to me as the glaring difference between negative and reversal. But we accept reversal, warts and all, in a way that we don't seem to accept 24p digital, even though it -with no post processing- emulates negative more closely than reversal ever would with all the post processing in the world. As a result, I think it is simply easier to look at digital as a different emulsion.

Now you are bringing it back to the physical representation - but I see what you are saying - but to me it is still in the realm of 'filming' with video - and yes that is very subjective of me - and this is really not as good as your optimism Roger!

MovieStuff wrote:Ultimately I think we, as film lovers, have a bias that affects our preferences that would be sorely tested if we had to do the blind taste test ourselves. ;)

Agreed - but this is a fundamental point to my statement about young filmmakers...

MovieStuff wrote:

Andersens Tears wrote:There is an analogue biteback at the moment. There are so many young filmmakers out there disolusioned by the clinical world of digital that they are just looking for some organic way to be creative without relying on a computer to correct everything.

I'm not sure how you define "so many young film makers" as a meaningful sampling of the marketplace. Not be argumentative but, realistically, if they are young film makers with little actual film experience, my guess is they would have a very hard, if not impossible, time doing a blind taste test if they had to pick out shots on the screen that originated on film or digital. And, again, the degree of post work required to make something look like you want is kind of moot since very little film originated material looks like you want, right out of the magazine. I seriously doubt they would switch over to reversal just to avoid the hassle of dealing with the orange masking inherent in negative stock and, let's face it, the degree of CC required to make negative look anything close to "normal" is far greater than what is required to make even the cheapest 24p camera look acceptable, right out of the camera.

Of course this again is subjective and I am speaking from my own personal expereince of young filmmakers up here in the 'north' of Sweden.

I work with young filmmakers everyday - it's part of my job. I run workshops in 'analogue' filmmaking techniques, and of course I use Super 8. Most of the young guys and girls who have recently left school and are inbetween or partly on their way to film school or self establishment are taken by the beauty of film 'the look' and the process of achieving it. So many of them WANT to 'get their hands dirty' and take a more active role in the physical construction of their film and not let the computer and the digital domain play too much of a role of getting them there. It is not too dissimilar from the way they want Vynil instead of mp3's.

Even the teachers at some of the schools who send over students want to come and have a go - ÃƒÂ­t would be a release from the digital confines of their school.

Saying that even some established Filmmakers (Here anyways) want to come and have a go.

MovieStuff wrote:

Andersens Tears wrote:OK super 8 is not perfect - but this is part of the reason I like it. One day it will all end, but until then my DV camera coninutes to gather dust.

Well, I think that is a valid argument about the viability of film. The unpredictable nature of film emulsion means that you can have some really interesting final results, which is something that I like, myself. So I'm with you 100% on that. But, from a commercial film standpoint, unpredictability is the least desired trait of any serious medium. So, in that sense, I can see how the industry is moving more and more towards digital for production.

Roger

The same way that the industry is moving torwards digital stunt men instead of the real thing - it's a money thing... but that's another story!

Andersens Tears wrote:
Yes that is a fair point Roger - however Digital processed to mimic filmic qualities it STILL is an arteficial representation of 'FILM' - I hate using cliches, but here is one - it's like the diet coke to the regular coke - it does the same job but it just tastes arteficial.

To some but not to all. I hate it but I know many people that, like 24p, can't tell the difference. And, let's face it, theatrical movies and television operate in a commercial venue. When Technicolor 3 strip was dropped in favor of monopack (Kodachrome) there was no public outcry. When monopack was dropped in favor of color negative, there was no lynch mob outside the studio gates. Hell, even Kodachrome changed radically from the days of KII to K40, in terms of quality. Emulsions and preferred stocks change all the time. I'm not saying that there weren't some people like us that would notice the changes but that we are simply a minority voice in the overall big picture and the changes are driven by commercial, not aesthetic, values and always has been. So, in that sense, digital IS just the next commercial emulsion,even though it looks nothing like Technicolor 3 strip, monopack nor color negative.

Andersens Tears wrote:
Roger, in one of my previous posts I talk about the terminology 'filming' when using video - I abhor it - I can't even stand it when you watch something that says at the beginning 'A Film by' when this is just not true.

I agree. It's one of my pet peeves as well. Especially in news work when some young, 20 something twinky says, "While we were filming this segment....". My dad worked for 50+ years in broadcast news out in the field as an engineer. He was around when they shot on Auricons, rushed back to the station, processed and then ran the film wet in time for the 10:00 news. That's film. So I'm with you on this.

Andersens Tears wrote:

MovieStuff wrote:I understand what you are saying, though, from an aesthetic standpoint. But the statement "digital looks nothing like film" is very subjective while the statement "negative looks nothing like Kodachrome" isn't.

That's not exactly what I said Roger, hopefully my explanation above has made this more clear.

I understand. I wasn't trying to misquote you. What you originally wrote was

Andersens Tears wrote:Quite simply video is not film and never will be.

Since the catalyst for this discussion was about digital acquisition for movies like "Apocalyto" and because your post was in response to that, I thought you were referring to digital/video in general. Hence my reply. But I understand what you are saying.

Andersens Tears wrote:
Thanks for the interesting banter Roger

If only it would make any difference in the final longevity of film but, alas, I'm afraid we are in the early mourning days for the medium, as a whole.

Now THAT's a huge difference right there. I would say that, even if the look of digital and film were identical, film is simply more fun to shoot and, perhaps, that difference becomes a more meaningful extension of the process than we consciously give consideration to. Kind of like parents: You love them both but, generally, there is one that is more "fun" than the other, even though you would never say it out loud.

It is interesting how everytime a new invention comes to replace the older one, people start using the new even though it sucks. RED cameras are technically impressive, all the specs look good on paper, but there's just something missing.

People often say that if movie has interesting plot and characters, it doesn't really matter if it's not visually "perfect". For me it matters. For me movies are, like the name suggests, moving images. Not some kind of multimedia presentations, but images that has soul. Writing a book would be the most economical way to tell a story.

We love super 8, but how many people are really crying for the death of floppy disk? Not many, I think. And that's because floppy disk is just data storage medium.

mauka wrote:
People often say that if movie has interesting plot and characters, it doesn't really matter if it's not visually "perfect". For me it matters.

I can enjoy a 'good' movie with great plot, characters and acting even if it was shot on a KiddieCamcorder.....but I do notice if something was shot on digital or film, and a well shot movie is the icing on the cake.

The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter

But a 5 year old mini DV camera will produce a better result than something recording direct to DVD or a 4Gb SD card.

Having used a couple of DVD camcorders at work I can honestly say the results are apalling...even at the higest quality setting you're talking about roughly 1.2Gb an hour....I've downloaded better via Bittorrent!

The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter

Davideo wrote:
The day that film dies will also be the day my company will shut down. I will absolutely NOT tolerate a world without film.

I don't think there will be a specific day that film dies and the "death" of film is kind of relative to budget and resources. To some that can no longer afford such a rarity, then film will be dead. In that sense, super 8 is already dead to many because it is just deemed too expensive for the minimal results obtained. So I think film will always be around but how accessible it will remain is the big question.